Search

I used to think that a supreme court served to ensure justice in a country, not to help sell it. Instead of 3 impeccable judges, we have 3 street vendors of the president's maniac, who instead of carefully reviewing a decision opposed by all of Argentina, quickly send to persecute those who raise their voices: this pathetic justice has just invented an indictment against Grabois, who coincidentally spent the last 24 hours cursing at them. (translated)

Attention: TSE minister Estela Aranha has just issued a preliminary decision determining that TV Globo will not be able to show Lula's empty podium in the debate this Thursday (1st/10). The minister was appointed to the Electoral Court by the member of the Workers' Party. @Metropoles (translated)

It was Sadi who said it, but she's right!! No one is being deceived: It’s a scam "There is no electoral fraud in Bolsonaro's campaign. Those who are shocked are not paying attention. They say exactly what they will do if they win the election. It was like this in 18, in 22, and now. What they intend to do is stated in the campaign." (translated)

Private security cannot serve as a facade for crime! As soon as the superintendent of Surveillance and Private Security took office, I gave a clear order: to pursue the facades that criminals use to arm and protect themselves. The Supervision is advancing against companies investigated for connections with Los Costeños, the Vega Daza Clan, and irregularities in arms control. Maximus has had its license revoked. For Blink, Lost Prevention, and Atenas, cancellation decisions have been adopted pending confirmation. OL Security Group–Servisecurity remains suspended, and its cancellation is in process. I demand rigorous controls and clarification of the destination of the missing weapons! Anyone who has responsibilities must answer before the justice system, whoever they are. We will go department by department, corner by corner of the homeland, eliminating the facades of criminals. I’m coming for everyone! Firm for the Homeland! Long live Christ the King! (translated)

"He had the presence of mind - in a way, he was a hero - to open the door. You know, those doors are made of solid steel and cannot be opened from the outside. He managed to crawl, open the door, and shout (for help)." Donald Trump, President of the USA: "He had the presence of mind - in a way, he was a hero - to open the door. You know, those doors are made of solid steel and cannot be opened from the outside. He managed to crawl, open the door, and shout (for help)." (translated)

ATTENTION! Vasco has filed a new lawsuit in court requesting the Maracanã for the game against Boca Juniors. The Cruzmaltino has the support of the Military Police of Rio, which stated that the game would be better at Maracanã. In addition to the authorities' suggestion, Conmebol and FERJ are also in favor of Vasco using the stadium. (translated)

🚨 VASCO CONTESTS TECHNICAL CRITERIA OF FLA-FLU, POINTS OUT VIOLATION OF CONCESSION RULES AND CITES DECISION FROM TJRJ IN ACTION FOR MARACANÃ Vasco filed an obligation lawsuit on Wednesday (1st) with a request for urgent protective measures to try to secure the Maracanã against Boca Juniors on October 20, for the semifinal of the South American Cup. In the action, the club directly questions the technical criteria used by Fla-Flu to deny the stadium, points out unequal treatment, supports violations of concession rules, and also explores a contradiction involving the Memorandum of Understanding. 📌 WHAT FLA-FLU ALLEGED In response to Vasco, the concessionaire pointed to the accumulated wear of the lawn, the climatic conditions of July and August, and the need to preserve the intervals designated for field maintenance. For 10/20, Fla-Flu specifically mentioned games of Fluminense on 10/18 and Flamengo on 10/22. With Vasco x Boca between these matches, there would be three games in five days. According to the concessionaire, this sequence would prevent procedures such as helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and repair of damage to the lawn. 📌 VASCO QUESTIONS THE TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION The first counterpoint is the lawn itself. Vasco highlights that, three days after the denial, it was announced that the existing field would be removed and new Bermuda Celebration rolls would be placed, with the return of football scheduled for 10/08. Vasco x Boca will be on 10/20. The club's thesis is that it would not be possible to use the accumulated wear of the old lawn as justification for a match that will take place 12 days after the return of football to the renewed field. 📌 GREENLEAF DOCUMENT IS USED BY VASCO Vasco also retrieves the technical planning prepared by Greenleaf, the company responsible for lawn maintenance, in August. According to the action, the document shows that the same procedures cited by Fla-Flu to deny Vasco x Boca have already been carried out in a concentrated manner between matches. The petition states that helical mowing, targeted fertilization, supplemental lighting, and damage repair have even been grouped in a single day after a match, even in a winter scenario and lawn wear. The question posed by Vasco is direct: if this work could be done in August to accommodate the sequence of games from Flamengo and Fluminense, why couldn't it be repeated in October, after the complete lawn replacement? 📌 INTERVAL BETWEEN GAMES Vasco also contests the argument of three games in five days by comparing the situation with the recent calendar of the Maracanã. The action argues that sequences with reduced intervals for Flamengo and Fluminense matches have already been admitted. For Vasco, if the necessary interval for lawn recovery is decisive for denying a match, that criterion must be applied equally to all clubs. 📌 SHOWS AND OTHER EVENTS The action also points out that the Maracanã hosts shows, religious gatherings, and events from other sports, including the installation of structures and occupancy of the field area. Vasco questions how the administration can reconcile these events with lawn preservation, yet considers it technically unfeasible to host a semifinal of CONMEBOL. According to the data presented in the action, at least seven extraordinary events unrelated to official football were held between 2025 and 09/30/2026. 📌 CONCESSION NOTICE Vasco cites item 3.4 of the Terms of Reference, which gives priority to football events from the official calendars of FIFA, CONMEBOL, CBF, and FERJ over other events. Vasco x Boca is an official semifinal of CONMEBOL. The action argues that there would be an "inversion of this priority" by accommodating shows and other events and denying the stadium for a match that, under the concession rules cited by the club, should have priority. The petition mentions "distortion of the concessionaire's obligations" and "violation of the equal treatment required by the Concession Notice." 📌 UNEQUAL TREATMENT Vasco summarizes its challenge in four points: • the lawn replacement would change the premise of accumulated wear; • Greenleaf's own planning would demonstrate that maintenance could be carried out between matches; • the calendar would show reduced intervals that have already been admitted for Flamengo and Fluminense; • other events are reconciled with the necessary care for field preservation. As a result, Vasco asserts that restrictions are being applied selectively. The action further cites clause 13.2 of the Concession Contract, which prohibits favoritism and unjustifiably different, discriminatory treatment, or "without technical criteria" that results in restricted access to the Complex. 📌 THE CONTRADICTION POINTED OUT BY VASCO Fla-Flu claims not to recognize the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025. At the same time, according to Vasco, it uses the document itself—especially the provision for four matches conditioned on availability and operational conditions—to justify the denial. Vasco points out contradictory behavior and invokes the principle of good faith. 📌 PREVIOUS DECISION OF TJRJ The action also cites the Instrument Appeal No. 3023517-70.2026.8.19.0000. On that occasion, Justice Alexandre Freitas Câmara analyzed the discussion regarding the absence of Fla-Flu's signature on the Memorandum. The magistrate stated that Flamengo and Fluminense, members of the concessionaire, had signed the document and pointed out that disregarding it later could represent contradictory behavior contrary to good faith. 📌 RECOMMENDATION FROM BEPE The issue of public safety also appears as an argument for the use of the Maracanã. According to the action, BEPE (Specialized Battalion for Policing in Stadiums) recommended holding the match at the Maracanã due to the magnitude of the confrontation and the expected public turnout. Vasco uses this recommendation to argue that the Maracanã is not just a preference of the club. The petition points to the stadium as the option that best meets capacity, location, structure, security, and operational conditions to host the match against Boca. 📌 SÃO JANUÁRIO IS NOT AN OPTION Vasco also differentiates the situation from the previous process involving Vasco x Vitória, when it did not obtain a preliminary injunction to use the Maracanã. This time, according to the action, São Januário cannot host the semifinal. The South American Manual requires a minimum capacity of 30,000 spectators starting from the semifinals, while the petition indicates São Januário has approximately 21,880 seats. Vasco acknowledges the Nilton Santos Stadium as an alternative but argues that having another stadium does not resolve the issue brought to Justice: is there legitimate technical and contractual basis for Fla-Flu to deny Maracanã? 📌 WHAT VASCO SEEKS Vasco is seeking a preliminary injunction requiring Fla-Flu to make the Maracanã available for Vasco x Boca on 10/20 at 9:30 PM. The request includes the maximum ticket allocation corresponding to the authorized capacity, the use of necessary facilities for organizing the match, the implementation of a mosaic, and temporary installation of banners in the same manner allowed for the clubs that are members of the concessionaire. In case of non-compliance, Vasco requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million. Vasco must inform CONMEBOL by October 5 where it will hold the return match of the semifinal. (translated)

The co-pilot who attempted to attack a flight to Israel was identified as radicalized, and the investigation focuses on how he managed to smuggle a knife onto the plane, with the Israeli prime minister suggesting that his intention was suicidal and part of a jihadist mission. (translated)

URGENT: VASCO GOES TO COURT OVER MARACANÃ! Vasco da Gama filed a lawsuit on Thursday (1st) for an obligation to act with a request for urgent protection against FLA-FLU Serviços S.A., the concessionaire of Maracanã. The objective is to guarantee the match Vasco x Boca Juniors, for the CONMEBOL Sudamericana semifinal, at Maracanã, on October 20, at 9:30 PM. The urgency is huge: Vasco needs to inform CONMEBOL by October 5 which stadium will host the match. In the action, the club argues that São Januário does not meet the minimum capacity requirement established for the semifinals of the competition and emphasizes the structure of Maracanã to host a confrontation of this magnitude. The petition also cites a statement from the Military Police in favor of holding the game at the stadium. Vasco also claims to have a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025 that provided for the use of Maracanã in matches of CBF, FIFA, or CONMEBOL competitions, in addition to establishing that any refusal should be based on technical and operational criteria. The preliminary request is clear: for the court to order the availability of Maracanã for Vasco x Boca Juniors, including the necessary conditions for the execution and organization of the match. The club also requests a daily fine of R$ 1 million in case of non-compliance with the possible court order and urgently requires the concessionaire to be notified so that the stadium can be confirmed with CONMEBOL within the deadline. (translated)